Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Ijaz-Ul-Hassan alias Gogi vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 502 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-15
  post-arrest bailmurderpolice opinionconflicting investigationtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an FIR for murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail based on conflicting police investigation reports suggesting innocence and suicide, despite being nominated in the FIR with a specific role of firing supported by medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that sufficient incriminating material existed to connect the petitioner with the offense, noting that the medical officer did not confirm a suicidal death, an OPD register relied upon lacked evidentiary value, and police opinions regarding innocence are not binding on the court. The court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that conflicting police investigation findings do not override direct nomination with specific roles and corroborative medical evidence at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police opinion regarding the innocence of an accused binding upon the court during a bail petition?
  • Whether an accused nominated in the FIR with a specific role of firing is entitled to post-arrest bail when subsequent investigation reports present conflicting conclusions?
  • Can an OPD register issued long after the occurrence without a medico-legal certificate be considered of high evidentiary value for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz vs The State2020 YLR 1620, 2019 LHC 3618 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-22
  murdercapital punishmentchance witnessfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusperjurybenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencerecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Ijaz, for committing Qatl-i-Amd, along with a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the reliability of chance witnesses, the effect of dishonest improvements in ocular testimony, the application of the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus regarding acquitted co-accused, and the evidentiary value of recoveries and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was unproven, that they had made dishonest improvements regarding the appellant's role to align with medical evidence, and that their testimony could not be believed against the appellant when identical evidence had already resulted in the acquittal of co-accused. The Court established that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus forms an integral part of Pakistani criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the death sentence was not confirmed, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent proof of their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a witness who makes dishonest improvements to align testimony with medical evidence forfeit credibility?
  • Whether evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused can safely be used to maintain the conviction of another co-accused based on a common set of witnesses?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on medical and recovery evidence when the ocular account has been entirely rejected?
  • Whether the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies in criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Muhammad alias Ijaz Khan vs The State, etc2019 MLD 882, 2019 PHC 40 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmed Qureshi vs Govt. of Punjab through Chief Secretary, etc.2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 43 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2017-05-31
  disciplinary proceedingsPEEDA Act 2006service tribunalremand orderpenalty enhancementcivil servantmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns disciplinary proceedings initiated against a civil servant under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006. Following an inquiry, the inquiry officer recommended a minor penalty of withholding two increments. The competent authority, dissatisfied with this recommendation, remanded the case under Section 13(6) of the Act for review. Upon remand, the inquiry officer recommended a major penalty of reduction to a lower post and pay scale, which the authority subsequently imposed. The core legal question was whether the competent authority and the inquiry officer acted within the statutory framework when remanding the case and enhancing the penalty. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the remand order was legally flawed for failing to provide specific reasons for dissatisfaction, violating Section 13(6). Furthermore, the Tribunal found the inquiry officer exceeded the mandate of the remand order by enhancing the penalty without new evidence or justification. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the major penalty of reduction in rank while maintaining the original minor penalty of withholding increments, emphasizing that penalty enhancement requires explicit, reasoned justification based on the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a remand order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006 require the competent authority to provide specific reasons for its dissatisfaction with the inquiry officer's recommendations?
  • Can an inquiry officer enhance a penalty upon remand without the introduction of new evidence or specific justification germane to the charges?
  • Is a penalty enhancement valid if the competent authority fails to provide explicit reasons for disagreeing with the initial findings of an inquiry officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry vs Learned Civil Judge, etc2020 CLC 291, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 15, 2019 LHC 3655 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ihsanullah alias Ahsan Ali Sunny vs The state etc2019 PHC 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Khan, etc vs The State through Advocate General, Aj&K, etc.2019 KLR Criminal Cases 93 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-06-01
  murderdeath sentence confirmationocular accountrelated witnessesdying declarationrecovery of weaponfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and reference arise from a judgment of the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Sehnsa camp Kotli, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), APC, Section 341, APC, and Section 13/20/65, Arms Act, receiving a death sentence as Tazir, while co-accused were acquitted. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt through eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and weapon recovery, and whether the acquittal of co-accused warranted setting aside the conviction of the main appellant. The High Court held that the ocular account given by related and independent eye-witnesses was natural, consistent, and fully corroborated by medical reports, dying declarations, and the recovery of the crime weapon with a positive forensic report. The court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, establishing that mere relationship of witnesses does not discredit their testimony in the absence of established enmity, and that the acquittal of some co-accused does not demolish the prosecution case against an accused with a specific attributed fatal role.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased without establishing direct enmity?
  • Does the acquittal of some co-accused persons vitiate or demolish the prosecution case against the remaining accused who has been attributed a specific role with fatal injuries?
  • Whether a delay in recording a dying declaration is fatal to its evidentiary value when the deceased remained unfit for statement during medical treatment?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive entitle the accused to an acquittal when the charge is otherwise established through direct ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Khan vs Haris Khan and others2019 PHC 396 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Hussain Shah Kazmi vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1149 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-03-20
  dismissal from servicedepartmental inquirywillful absenceex-Pakistan leavewrit of certiorarimaster and servantprinciples of natural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, impugning the office memoranda whereby the petitioner, a bank manager, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings and his departmental appeal was dismissed. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was denied a fair hearing by the conduct of inquiry proceedings in his absence during alleged ex-Pakistan leave, and whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent factual findings in its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish that ex-Pakistan leave was lawfully granted in accordance with mandatory bank regulations, that he willfully absented himself from duly notified inquiry proceedings despite having notice, and that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that willful non-participation in domestic inquiry proceedings precludes an employee from claiming a violation of natural justice, and that a writ of certiorari is discretionary and does not permit the High Court to act as an appellate court re-evaluating factual determinations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who willfully stays away from inquiry proceedings can subsequently claim that he was condemned unheard in violation of the principles of natural justice?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the grant of ex-Pakistan leave while exercising its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • What are the supervisory limits of the High Court when issuing a writ of certiorari against departmental tribunals in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Alam vs The State2019 MLD 1870 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-18
  post-arrest bailcharas recoverychemical examiner samplefurther inquirynarcotics controlcomplainant as investigating officer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being booked under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 4 kg of charas from his possession. The core legal question was whether discrepancies in drawing samples for chemical analysis and the fact that the complainant acted as the investigating officer brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the ambiguous manner in which 50 grams of charas was separated from four packets for chemical examination created a reasonable doubt requiring further inquiry at trial. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that ambiguities in drawing narcotic samples from multiple packets for chemical analysis can bring a narcotics case within the purview of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the separation of a sample for chemical analysis from bulk narcotics in an ambiguous manner bring a case within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a police officer who acts as a complainant in a narcotics case lack the legal competence to investigate the same case?
  • Whether the recovery of a large quantity of charas without drawing separate samples from each individual packet warrants the refusal of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 435, 2019 SCMR 1224, 2019 SCP 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-16
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceidentification paradeDNA profilecommutation of sentenceabduction for ransominvestigative lapse
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the abduction and murder of an eleven-year-old girl, whose body was found after a ransom demand. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302(b) and 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which the High Court maintained. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence—comprising last-seen testimony, identification parade, recovery of ransom money and victim's belongings, and cell phone data—was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's culpability through well-synchronized circumstantial evidence, including reliable witness testimony and automated cell phone data. However, the Court noted a significant investigative lapse regarding the failure to generate a DNA profile from swabs taken from the deceased. Consequently, while upholding the conviction, the Court exercised its discretion to commute the death sentence to imprisonment for life, citing the evidentiary gap as a mitigating factor regarding the penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution fails to generate a DNA profile?
  • Does the failure to generate a DNA profile in a murder case necessitate the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is evidence derived from automated cell phone data considered reliable and immune from interference in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad and another vs The State and another2020 KLR Criminal Cases 151, 2019 MLD 2005 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-06
  benefit of doubtocular accountcriminal appealdeath sentencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscorroborative evidencemurderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court against the appellants for offenses under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the ocular account and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction after the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the ocular testimony unreliable due to the darkness at the time of the occurrence, the unnatural conduct of the witnesses, and the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, the court emphasized that when the prosecution's evidence is disbelieved regarding the majority of the accused, it cannot be relied upon for the remaining accused without strong independent corroboration, which was absent. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, and declined to confirm the death sentences, establishing that conviction cannot rest on corroborative evidence alone when the direct evidence is rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on corroborative evidence when the direct ocular account has been disbelieved?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused in the absence of strong independent corroboration?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates a reasonable dent in the prosecution's version?
  • Can a death sentence be confirmed when the underlying ocular evidence is found to be unreliable and doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad Abbasi vs National Industrial Relations Commission2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 33 · Islamabad High Court
  trade union electionstenure of office bearersindustrial relationsusurpermembership terminationcollective bargaining agentoutsider quota
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) regarding the eligibility of certain candidates to contest trade union elections. The core legal question was whether office bearers of a trade union, whose two-year statutory term had expired, retained the authority to terminate the membership of other union members, and whether such termination orders were legally valid. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NIRC's finding that the petitioner’s term as General Secretary had expired on 10.11.2014, two years after the last internal elections. Consequently, the petitioner’s subsequent actions, specifically the termination of respondents' membership in 2015, were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The court established that trade union office bearers cannot extend their tenure beyond the constitutional limit of two years, and any actions taken by them after the expiry of this term are deemed acts of usurpation. Furthermore, the statutory tenure is not tolled by court injunctions or the date of Collective Bargaining Agent certification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the two-year tenure of trade union office bearers get extended by court injunctions or the date of Collective Bargaining Agent certification?
  • Can trade union office bearers whose constitutional term has expired validly terminate the membership of other union members?
  • What is the legal status of actions taken by trade union office bearers after the expiry of their two-year term?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamran vs The State2019 SCMR 1314, 2019 SCP 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-11
  narcotic possessioncriminal appealwitness confrontationevidentiary discrepancyQanun-e-Shahadatconviction appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner for the possession of 1200 grams of Charas Garda, an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Following a trial, the petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, and sentenced to four years and six months of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the conviction, alleging discrepancies in the description of the contraband between the initial complaint and the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material infirmity in the prosecution's case. Crucially, the Court ruled that alleged discrepancies in witness testimony cannot be utilized by the defense to challenge the prosecution's case if the witnesses were not confronted with those specific contradictions during the trial, as required by the law of evidence. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner claim the benefit of discrepancies in witness testimony if the witnesses were not confronted with such discrepancies during the trial?
  • Is the failure to confront prosecution witnesses with prior statements a bar to raising those contradictions on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Jaber Ullah vs Said Nawab etc2020 YLR 515, 2019 PHC 208 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ifra Asjad vs Government of Punjab and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 191 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-05
  contractual employmentmaster and servantconstitutional petitiontermination of servicenatural justicemaintainabilityservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order terminating the petitioner's services as a SESE (Arts) teacher, appointed on a five-year contract. The petitioner contended that the termination was arbitrary, violated principles of natural justice, and occurred without an opportunity for a personal hearing. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable against the termination of a contractual employee, and whether the termination in this specific instance was legally flawed. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, observing that the relationship between the parties was governed by the law of master and servant. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to comply with mandatory training and had tampered with qualification certificates. Furthermore, the record demonstrated that the respondents had issued multiple show-cause notices, which the petitioner failed to answer, thereby refuting claims of being condemned unheard. The Court affirmed the principle that contractual employees cannot claim vested rights to continued employment and that such service disputes are generally not amenable to constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the termination of a contractual employee?
  • Does a contractual employee have a vested right to the continuation of their service until the expiry of the contract?
  • Can a contractual employee be terminated for misconduct or failure to fulfill mandatory training requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Ideal Ardade Builders and Development through Authorize2019 PLD Sindh 691 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-30Read full judgment →
• Ibrarullah son of Rasheed Khan vs The State etc2019 PHC 246 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-15
  criminal appealsodomymurderretracted confessionvoluntariness of confessioncircumstantial evidencemedical evidenceschizophreniaunsoundness of mind
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 377 and Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing sodomy and the subsequent murder of an 11-year-old child, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involved the voluntariness and evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, the sufficiency of circumstantial and medical corroboration, and the applicability of the defence of legal insanity due to schizophrenia under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Peshawar High Court held that the appellant's judicial confession was voluntary, duly recorded in compliance with Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and fully corroborated by consistent medical evidence, FSL reports, and incriminating recoveries. The court further held that mere omission to raise a plea of mental illness at the time of the occurrence or arrest, coupled with a lack of contemporaneous medical proof, precludes the benefit of Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the basis of a capital conviction if corroborated by independent circumstantial and medical evidence?
  • Whether delay in recording a judicial confession renders it involuntary under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a subsequent suspension of trial due to mental illness automatically establish the defence of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the time of the offence?
  • Whether discrepancies in police investigation are sufficient to discredit an otherwise established prosecution case supported by positive forensic and medical reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The State2019 SHC 296 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-06
  criminal appealdeath sentencemitigating circumstanceqatl-e-amdmurder referencereduction of sentenceimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi, whereby he was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the qatl-e-amd of his uncle, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alongside a murder reference submitted to the Sindh High Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction was sustainable and whether mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness testimony and recoveries, but modified the death sentence to imprisonment for life and reduced the compensation amount in view of the close relationship and absence of deep-rooted enmity between the parties. The key principle laid down is that the presence of a single mitigating circumstance or reasonable doubt regarding the quantum of sentence is sufficient to exercise judicial caution and award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses who are closely related to the deceased can form the basis of a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the existence of a single mitigating circumstance justify the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether close relationship and the absence of deep-rooted enmity between the accused and the victim's family can be considered a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs Customs Appellate Tribunal and 2 others2019 PCTLR 367, 2019 PLJ Lahore 529, 2019 PTD 1003 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Shah vs State etc.PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1193 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-23
  post-arrest bailmurdercross-versionrule of consistencyfurther inquiryaffidavit of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 125/2018 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sahoka, District Vehari, involving charges of murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry and consistency with co-accused already granted bail, given a conflicting cross-version and an affidavit of innocence by the injured witness. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the presence of a cross-version supported by police investigation, an affidavit of innocence by the injured witness, and the grant of bail to a co-accused with a similar role brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under the rule of consistency. The key principles laid down include the application of the rule of consistency in bail matters and the evaluation of cross-versions and statements of injured witnesses at the pre-trial bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when a cross-version supported by police investigation brings the case within the scope of further inquiry?
  • Does an affidavit from the injured witness stating the accused is innocent warrant the grant of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the basis of the rule of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has already been admitted to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim and 2 others vs The State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C) 247, 2019 YLR 2066 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-03-14
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtcontradictory medical evidenceocular testimonydirect complaintacquittalfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 394/511, 341, 336, and 337-D read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given material contradictions between the ocular account, direct complaint, FIR, and medical evidence regarding the number of firearm injuries and the allegation of robbery. The Federal Shariat Court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The court laid down the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on inconsistent and contradictory evidence, and that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between medical evidence and ocular testimony are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a conviction be maintained solely on the basis of presumptions when the prosecution fails to establish the charge through consistent and confidence-inspiring evidence?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• I.T.O. vs (M/s.) Oasis Realty, Mumbai2019 PCTLR 1040 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Hussain Ullah vs State and another2019 SCMR 1651, PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-09-22
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryfurther inquiryexclusive possessionControl of Narcotic Substances ActCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arose from a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, was apprehended in a parked car from which packets of charas were recovered. The petitioner was sitting on the rear seat of the vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be held to be in possession of the recovered narcotics when he was not driving the vehicle, no narcotics were recovered from his exclusive possession, and there was no evidence connecting him to the car. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that under these circumstances, the petitioner's involvement was a matter of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail, establishing the principle that mere presence in a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered, without exclusive possession or a proven connection to the vehicle, warrants further inquiry for the purpose of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a passenger sitting in the rear seat of a vehicle can be denied bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. when no narcotics are recovered from their exclusive possession and there is no evidence connecting them to the vehicle?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused in a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered automatically establish possession to deny bail, or does it make the case one of further inquiry?
  • Can an accused be kept incarcerated indefinitely for further inquiry when nothing remains to be recovered from their possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Shah, etc vs The State2020 PLD Supreme Court 132, 2019 SCP 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-20
  narcoticsconscious possessionChemical Examiner reportsampling procedurebenefit of doubtcriminal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of two appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 12,000 kilograms of Charas from a secret cavity in a trailer-truck. The primary legal questions concerned the validity of the Chemical Examiner's report, the qualifications of the analyst under the 2001 Rules, the legality of the trial court directing a Magistrate to take fresh samples from 12,000 packets, and the requirement of 'conscious possession' for a passenger. The Court upheld the conviction of the driver, Hussain Shah, finding the Chemical Examiner's report valid and the sampling process supervised by a Magistrate to be regular. However, the Court acquitted the second appellant, Abdul Sattar (a cleaner/helper), holding that mere presence in a vehicle is insufficient for conviction. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution must prove 'conscious possession' or specific knowledge of the narcotics against a passenger to sustain a conviction under the Act.

  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Shah vs Provincial Government2019 MLD 1516 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bakhsh vs Mst. Razia Bibi2019 LHC 2895 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Husnain Mustafa vs The State and anotherPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 107, 2019 SCMR 1914, 2019 SCP 326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-12
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirypolygraph testdelayed statementscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the denial of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of murdering three children alongside his co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry, given the prosecution's reliance on a polygraph test, delayed witness statements, and the complainant's inconsistent stance regarding co-accused persons. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail. The Court held that the complainant’s exoneration of a co-accused, who was initially implicated in the same manner as the petitioner, created a situation requiring further inquiry. The Court established that while heinous crimes are serious, bail cannot be withheld as a punitive strategy. Furthermore, a polygraph test, while a forensic tool, cannot be equated with an admission of guilt, and unexplained, inordinate delays in recording witness statements necessitate evidential verification at trial, thereby entitling an accused to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a polygraph test result constitute an admission of guilt sufficient to deny bail?
  • Can bail be withheld as a strategy for punishment in heinous crimes?
  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in recording witness statements warrant the grant of bail for further inquiry?
  • Does the exoneration of a co-accused by the complainant, who was initially implicated in the same manner as the petitioner, bring the petitioner's case within the ambit of further inquiry under bail provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Case No.3654 of 2018 (In the matter regarding2019 SCMR 1, 2018 SCP 1327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-11-08
  public sector companynepotismfiduciary dutymisuse of authorityrecovery of public moneycorporate governanceillegal appointmentsuo motudiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from the Supreme Court's observation regarding the prolonged vacancy of the Managing Director position at Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV) and the allegedly irregular appointment of Mr. Ata ul Haq Qasmi as Director and Chairman. The core legal questions involved the validity of Mr. Qasmi's appointment under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, and the PTV Articles of Association, as well as the legality of his exorbitant salary and perks. The Court held that the appointment was illegal as it bypassed mandatory procedures, including age limits and competitive selection (advertisement). Furthermore, the Court found that the Chairman's role is distinct from the Managing Director and does not entitle the holder to executive remuneration or unlimited perks. The Court declared Mr. Qasmi's actions void ab initio, found him lacking fiduciary behavior, and ordered the recovery of Rs. 197,867,491 from Mr. Qasmi and the high-ranking officials who facilitated the appointment. The key principle laid down is that public functionaries must exercise authority over public funds and appointments in a transparent, merit-based manner, and discretionary powers must be exercised reasonably and within legal limits.

  Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Case No.14959-K of 2018 vs N/A2020 PSC 553, 2019 SCP 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-01
  judicial independenceconstitution of benchesadministrative powers of Chief Justicejudicial dissentreconstitution of benchoriginal jurisdictionSupreme Court Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality of the Chief Justice's administrative power to reconstitute a judicial bench while it is actively seized of a case. The core legal question was whether the Chief Justice, having constituted a three-member bench to hear specific cases, could unilaterally reconstitute that bench during the proceedings due to judicial disagreement or administrative preference. The court held that once a bench is constituted and seized of a matter on the judicial side, the Chief Justice’s administrative power to constitute benches ceases. Consequently, the reconstitution of the bench in the instant case, absent any recusal or incapacity of a judge, was declared unwarranted, unprecedented, and void. The proceedings conducted by the reconstituted bench were held to be non-est. The key principle laid down is that the independence of the judiciary requires that benches cannot be reconstituted to stifle dissent or manage judicial disagreement; such actions undermine the integrity of the judicial system and erode public confidence. Judicial freedom to express independent views is foundational to the rule of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chief Justice unilaterally reconstitute a bench while it is actively seized of a matter?
  • Does the Chief Justice's administrative power to constitute benches persist after a bench has commenced hearing a case?
  • Are proceedings conducted by a bench reconstituted during the hearing of a case valid?
  • Can a bench be reconstituted solely due to disagreement among its members on an issue before them?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Case No. 17599 of 2018: In the matter of vs N/A2019 SCMR 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-03
  suo motu jurisdictionfundamental rightsright to lifepopulation controlsocio-economic rightsfamily planningconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This suo motu human rights case addresses the crisis of unchecked population growth in Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the State holds a constitutional obligation to implement population control measures to safeguard the fundamental rights of its citizens. The Court held that the rapid, unsustainable population growth constitutes a threat to the nation's socio-economic stability and the fundamental rights of the populace. Consequently, the Court endorsed a comprehensive set of recommendations formulated by a Task Force and approved by the Council of Common Interests to launch a national population planning campaign. The key principle laid down is that the right to life, as guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is not limited to mere existence but includes the right to live with dignity, encompassing access to basic amenities, health, and education. These rights are inextricably linked to socio-economic progress, which is severely undermined by overpopulation; therefore, the State is constitutionally mandated to prioritize population control to ensure the meaningful enjoyment of fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 include the right to basic amenities and a meaningful standard of living?
  • Can the Supreme Court of Pakistan exercise suo motu jurisdiction to address national issues like population growth that impact fundamental rights?
  • Are the directive principles of State policy regarding socio-economic progress enforceable in conjunction with fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Case No,14959-K of 2018: In the matter: vs N/A2019 PLJ SC 121, 2019 PLD Supreme Court 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-01
  judicial independencebench reconstitutionadministrative powersSupreme Court Rulesoriginal jurisdictionArticle 184(3)judicial dissent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality of the Chief Justice’s administrative power to reconstitute a judicial bench mid-hearing. The core legal question is whether a bench, once constituted and seized of a matter, can be reconstituted by the Chief Justice due to judicial disagreement. The Court held that while the Chief Justice possesses administrative authority to constitute benches under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, this power does not extend to reconstituting a bench already seized of a matter, absent a member's recusal or other valid judicial necessity. The Court ruled that such mid-hearing reconstitution, particularly when aimed at silencing dissent or disagreement, is unwarranted, unprecedented, and undermines the independence of the judiciary. Consequently, the proceedings conducted by the reconstituted bench were declared void and non-est. The judgment establishes the principle that once a bench is seized of a case, its composition is a judicial matter, not an administrative one, and any attempt to stifle judicial independence through bench reconstitution threatens the integrity of the justice system and public confidence in the judiciary.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chief Justice reconstitute a bench after it has commenced hearing a case?
  • Does the administrative power of the Chief Justice to constitute benches extend to cases already seized by a bench?
  • Are proceedings conducted by a bench reconstituted mid-hearing due to judicial disagreement valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Humaira Khakwani & 2 others vs State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 28 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-21
  pre-arrest bailmala fidefabrication of documentsdowerfamily litigationcriminal procedureprotection of female accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Humaira Khakwani and two others, who apprehended arrest in a criminal case registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The allegations involved the fabrication of a marriage certificate to include disputed land as dower. The petitioners argued that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intent to influence ongoing family litigation regarding maintenance and dower recovery. The Court observed that the bridegroom had not personally disputed the marriage certificate, and the prosecution relied on a special attorney rather than the husband's direct testimony. Furthermore, no statement of the husband under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 had been recorded. The Court held that the petitioners were being hounded with mala fide intentions to subvert civil proceedings. Additionally, the Court noted the protections available to a female under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim bail, finding no useful purpose would be served by the petitioners' incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 from the primary complainant support a claim of mala fide in a criminal case?
  • Can a criminal case be used to subvert ongoing civil litigation regarding dower and maintenance?
  • Is the incarceration of a female accused justified when the investigation does not require her custody under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Hum Network Ltd. through constituted attorney vs Pakistan through Secretary Revenue and 2 others2019 PCRLJ 620, 2019 PTD 987 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-20
  withholding taxagency commissionadvance taxdeductions not allowedshow-cause noticeinterim injunctiontax circulars
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three civil suits filed by media channels seeking injunctive relief against show-cause notices issued by the tax department regarding alleged non-deduction of withholding tax on agency commissions under Section 233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the consequent disallowance of expenses under Section 21(c). The core legal question is whether media houses are liable to withhold advance tax under Section 233 on agency commissions and whether such commissions were validly treated as expenses. The court held that the department committed a fundamental factual error by treating gross revenue deductions in the plaintiffs' audited financial statements as claimed expenses, and further found that the payment mechanism prescribed by Federal Board of Revenue circulars exempts media houses from direct tax deduction obligations when advertisers make payments. The court concluded that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, confirming the interim injunctions and restraining the department from passing final adverse orders pending final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether media houses can be held liable for non-deduction of withholding tax under Section 233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, on amounts accounted for as revenue deductions rather than claimed expenses?
  • Are the circulars and clarifications issued by the Federal Board of Revenue regarding the payment mechanism between advertisers, advertising agencies, and media houses binding on the tax department under Section 214 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Whether the disallowance of expenses under Section 21(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is attracted when the taxpayer has not claimed the disputed amount as an expense in its financial statements?
  • Does the absence of a principal-agent relationship between the taxpayer and the payee preclude the application of Section 233(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Hub Power Co. Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Islamabad2019 PTD 1187 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-14
  income tax referencetax exemptionterm depositsbank depositsWorkers Welfare Fundstatutory interpretationdisjunctive or conjunctiveFinance Act 2006Finance Act 2008money bill
  Summary & questions settled

  The Islamabad High Court decided a set of consolidated Income Tax References filed by the applicant company regarding tax exemptions on profit on debt and liability under the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971. The core legal issues involved: (i) whether term deposits fall within the tax exemption under Clause 74, Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; and (ii) whether amendments made to the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 via the Finance Acts of 2006 and 2008 through Money Bills were constitutionally valid. The Court held that statutory tax exemptions must be strictly construed against the claimant. In Clause 74, the word "or" between "bank deposits" and "accounts with financial institutions" must be read conjunctively as "and" to prevent redundancy and absurd results. Consequently, term deposits do not qualify for tax exemption unless directly connected with financial transactions relating to project operations. On the second question, agreeing with the Lahore and Peshawar High Courts, the Court held that the amendments made via the Finance Acts of 2006 and 2008 were unconstitutional, so Workers' Welfare Fund liability remains assessable under the pre-amendment statutory rates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether term deposits qualify for tax exemption under Clause 74, Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?
  • Whether the word 'or' between 'bank deposits' and 'accounts with financial institutions' in Clause 74, Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 is to be read conjunctively as 'and'?
  • Whether the amendments made to the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance 1971 through the Finance Acts of 2006 and 2008 via Money Bills are constitutionally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Company Limited vs (Mrs.) Shahzadi Arif2019 PCTLR 659 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Company Limited through Branch Manager vs Ms. Rukhsana Mumtaz2019 CLD 113 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
• Homoeopathic Dr. Faisal Saleem vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1215, 2019 YLR 361 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-05-16Read full judgment →
• Homeopathic Doctor Mehmood-Ul-Haq Abbasi vs H/Dr. Muhammad Irfan2019 PLC (C.S.) 874 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-03-14
  National Council for Homeopathystatutory interpretationdisqualification of memberremoval from registerpower of reviewadministrative lawUnani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged a judgment declaring his restoration as a Member of the National Council for Homeopathy illegal. The core legal questions concerned whether the Federal Government possessed the power to review its prior disqualification order under the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, and whether disqualification as a Council member under Section 13(2) automatically necessitated the removal of the practitioner's name from the register under Section 28. The Court held that the Federal Government lacked statutory authority to review or recall the initial disqualification notification. However, it clarified that proceedings under Section 13(2) and Section 28 are distinct and separate. Disqualification as a member does not ipso facto trigger the removal of a practitioner's name from the register; such removal requires independent proceedings and adherence to due process. The Court further ruled that the original disqualification notification became infructuous upon the expiration of the appellant's term. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, establishing that regulatory disqualification and professional registration removal are separate legal processes requiring distinct procedural compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have the inherent power to review or recall a notification issued under Section 13(2) of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965?
  • Are the proceedings for disqualification of a member under Section 13(2) and the removal of a practitioner's name from the register under Section 28 of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965 distinct and separate?
  • Does disqualification as a member of the Council under Section 13(2) of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965 automatically render the removal of a practitioner's name from the register a ministerial act under Section 28?
  Read full judgment →
• Hizbullah vs The State and another2019 YLR 2357 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-17
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayfundamental rightspeedy trialremandincarcerationmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner was accused in a murder case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with Section 15 of the Arms Ordinance, and had previously been convicted, but his conviction was set aside by the High Court and the case remanded for retrial. The core legal question is whether an accused who has spent a prolonged period in detention, partly as a convict prior to remand and partly as an under-trial prisoner, is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay when the delay is not attributable to him. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right since the total period of continuous incarceration exceeded the statutory threshold and the delay was not occasioned by the defense. The court established the principle that the entire period spent in jail, whether as a convict or an under-trial prisoner, is countable when computing statutory delay for bail purposes, and that an expeditious trial is a fundamental right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period spent in jail as a convict prior to the remand of a case is countable towards statutory delay when deciding a subsequent post-arrest bail petition?
  • Can post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be refused on hyper-technical grounds?
  • Is an accused entitled to statutory bail as a matter of right when the delay in the conclusion of the trial is not occasioned by any act or omission on his part?
  Read full judgment →
• Hikmatullah vs The Major Anti-Smuggling Officer, Peshawar and 32019 PTD (Trib.) 116 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-07-30Read full judgment →
• Hijab Qazi vs Chairman/CEO Piac & 04 others2019 SHC 156 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-15
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantstatutory rulesservice disputedismissal from servicePIAC
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an air hostess dismissed from service by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging her dismissal order. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable against PIAC in service matters, given that PIAC employees are governed by the principle of master and servant rather than statutory service rules. Relying heavily on binding precedents of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the court held that PIAC's service rules and regulations are non-statutory instructions for internal control, meaning the employment relationship is strictly governed by the rule of master and servant. Consequently, service grievances against PIAC cannot be enforced through a writ petition under Article 199. The petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether PIAC has statutory rules of service and if a writ can be issued against it under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against PIAC in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence governing its employment relations?
  • What are the salient characteristics that distinguish statutory rules of service from non-statutory rules in public employment?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to the terms and conditions of employment of PIAC employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ullah vs Additional Collector Customs (Adjudication), MCC, Peshawar and 2 others2020 P C T L R 486, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 2045 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
• HESCO & another vs Mst. Subhan Khatoon & Ors.2019 SHC 536 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-17Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Wali vs Land Acquisition Collector & others2020 CLC 1202, 2021 KLR Revenue Cases 10, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 55, 2019 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-18Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Hussain vs The State2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 357, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 558 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-04-12Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ali and 15 others vs Muzaffar Kahn (deceased) through L.Rs.2019 YLR 1729 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-12Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Muhammad vs Raqia Begum (deceased) through L.Rs2019 LHC 3308, 2022 KLR 107 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-26Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bukhsh vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 186 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-09
  pre-arrest bailmisappropriationFood Support Programfurther inquirycriminal breach of trustdocumentary evidencebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Sections 5(2) and 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, concerning the alleged misappropriation of funds from the Food Support Program. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner's role as a postmaster, coming at the final stage of a regulated disbursement process and unsupported by incriminating material or forensic verification, makes his case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the prosecution lacked sufficient prima facie material connecting the petitioner to the offense, establishing that his case fell within the scope of further inquiry, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where documentary evidence is already in possession of the investigating agency and the accused's role is at the tail end of a verified procedure without direct evidence of misappropriation or benefit, pre-arrest bail is appropriately confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the prosecution lacks incriminating material connecting the accused to the alleged misappropriation?
  • Does the absence of forensic verification of thumb impressions and statements of beneficiaries render a criminal case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the petitioner's pursuit of departmental and tribunal remedies be construed as abscondment to disentitle him from pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Ahmad vs State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1422 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-26
  criminal appealmurderrapeDNA evidenceadmissibility of forensic reportreasonable doubtocular evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the triple murder and rape of three individuals. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony, the recovery of bloodstained weapons, and a DNA forensic report. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of the forensic report, the credibility of the eyewitnesses, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court identified significant discrepancies, including the unexplained presence of witnesses at the crime scene, the implausibility of the weapons recovered, and the delayed autopsy. Crucially, the court ruled that the DNA report was inadmissible as it was prepared by a non-designated laboratory and the author was not produced for cross-examination. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that convictions cannot rest on moral satisfaction alone when the prosecution's narrative is riddled with reasonable doubts and inconsistencies. The death sentence was not confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a forensic report prepared by a laboratory not designated under the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act 2007 admissible without the author's testimony?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on moral satisfaction when the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent?
  • Does the acquittal of identically placed co-accused necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused when the evidence is common?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazaro alias Hazar Khan Shar vs The State2019 YLR 1620 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-01
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction baillife imprisonmentappellate courtstatutory interpretationmedical grounds for bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, filed an application seeking suspension of his sentence pending appeal. The core legal question was whether the appellant, an 82-year-old individual, was entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the appeal being fresh and the two-year statutory period for deciding appeals not having elapsed. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant did not meet the statutory criteria for bail under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the appeal was filed recently and the two-year threshold had not been reached. Furthermore, the court determined that advanced age alone is not a sufficient ground for suspending a sentence, and medical reports indicated that the appellant's condition did not necessitate release for medical reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the application while directing an expedited hearing of the main appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is advanced age alone a sufficient ground for suspending a sentence pending appeal?
  • Does the statutory requirement of a two-year delay in deciding an appeal under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to fresh appeals?
  • Can a sentence of life imprisonment be suspended if the medical condition of the convict is being managed within the prison system?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazara Efficient Gas through Partner vs Oil and Gas Regulatory2019 MLD 1955 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-30Read full judgment →
• Hawa Begum vs Naik Bakht and others2019 PLD Balochistan 85, 2021 PLJ Quetta 24, 2020 [M] C L R 229, KLR 2020 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-01Read full judgment →
• Hassan Jan vs Federation of Pakistan & 04 others2019 SHC 312 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-28
  constitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunal jurisdictionde-novo enquirydisciplinary proceedingsdouble jeopardymoral turpitudevoluntary return
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant challenging a de-novo inquiry and charge sheet initiated against him regarding financial embezzlement and fraudulent GP Fund payments. The petitioner contended that he had already been penalized with a minor penalty for the same allegations and that the fresh proceedings violated the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Article 199 regarding disciplinary proceedings concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Court held that Article 212 ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants, which fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that a writ petition is not maintainable against ongoing disciplinary proceedings involving corruption, corrupt practices, and moral turpitude, especially where the petitioner opted for voluntary return under the National Accountability Bureau law, which amounts to an admission of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition against disciplinary proceedings concerning the terms and conditions of a civil servant in view of Article 212?
  • Does a de-novo inquiry initiated after a service tribunal's observation violate the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution?
  • Whether opting for voluntary return under the National Accountability Bureau law constitutes an admission of guilt amounting to moral turpitude?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashoo Holdings (Private) Limited vs Securities and Exchange Commission2019 CLD 675 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-04Read full judgment →
• Hashmat Ullah vs The State, etcPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 148, PLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 94, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 17, 2019 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-08-07
  criminal breach of trustinvestment disputeNational Accountability Ordinanceentrustment of propertydishonest intentioncivil liabilityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant under section 9(a)(x) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for allegedly failing to return investments and dishonouring cheques related to his medicine business. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s failure to repay investors constituted a criminal offence under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, or merely a civil dispute. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was unsustainable because the transactions were investments rather than entrustment of property. The Court reasoned that the offence of criminal breach of trust, as defined in section 405, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, requires entrustment, which is absent in investment scenarios. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove dishonest intention, as the appellant had paid profits for a period before the business failed. The Court established the principle that a failure to return investment money, absent evidence of initial dishonest intent or entrustment, constitutes a civil dispute regarding rendition of accounts rather than a criminal offence under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to return investment money constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under section 405, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an investment transaction equivalent to an entrustment of property for the purposes of section 9(a)(x) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can a conviction under section 9(a)(iii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 be sustained without proof of initial dishonest intention or entrustment of property?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashmat Medical & Dental Council vs Pakistan Medical & Dental2019 PLJ Islamabad 150 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
• Hashim vs The State2019 YLR 552 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-03
  police encounterbenefit of the doubtdelayed FSL reportunverified recoveryanti-terrorismillicit weaponsbomb disposal reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and the Explosive Substances Act following an alleged police encounter. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, given the lack of independent witnesses, unexplained delays in sending recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory, and glaring discrepancies regarding weapon and hand grenade serial numbers. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case, noting that the absence of injuries to the police despite heavy firing, failure to associate private independent mashirs from a populated area, inordinate delays in forensic analysis, and missing serial numbers in recovery memos rendered the entire police case doubtful and fabricated. The court laid down the principle that multiple material contradictions, unverified recoveries, and unexplained delays in forensic testing create a strong presumption of false implication, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained inordinate delay in sending recovered weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the positive FSL report doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in a police encounter case where no injuries or damage are sustained by the police party despite an alleged exchange of heavy gunfire?
  • What is the legal effect on a recovery memo when the recovered weapons and hand grenades do not bear serial numbers at the time of seizure but miraculously acquire them in subsequent inspection reports?
  • Whether failure to associate independent private witnesses from a thickly populated area during recovery proceedings creates a fatal flaw in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashim vs State2020 P Cr. L J 895, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1379, 2019 PHC 292 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-10
  rapebenefit of doubthostile witnessdelay in FIRmedical evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Court Abbottabad convicting the appellants under Sections 376, 342, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rape and facilitation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the prosecutrix's uncorroborated testimony, the significance of medical evidence regarding an old hymenal tear and delayed examination, the effect of an eyewitness turning hostile, and the explanation for an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt due to material contradictions, lack of corroborative physical or medical evidence, unexplained delay in reporting, and the failure of the prosecution to substantiate the essential elements of the crime. The court established that a conviction in heinous offenses requires reliable, unimpeachable corroboration and proof beyond reasonable doubt, and where material loopholes exist, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an uncorroborated statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape when medical evidence contradicts the version of the occurrence?
  • Does a delay of several days in lodging the First Information Report, without reliable explanation, prove fatal to the prosecution case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of the statement of a witness declared hostile, and can it be relied upon without corroboration?
  • Can a conviction for abetment or facilitation stand when the primary charge against the principal offender is not proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashim Shah and others vs Mst. Hakeeman alias Bibi Wadal Shah and others2019 CLC 732 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-19Read full judgment →
• Haroon vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 19 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-21
  criminal appealnarcotics controlsafe custody of contrabandchemical examiner reportchain of custodybenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9-C of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of charas and opium. The core legal question addressed is whether the prosecution established the safe custody and unimpeachable transmission of the recovered contraband samples to the Chemical Examiner. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody due to a significant unexplained discrepancy regarding the handling of samples by an unauthorised third party, specifically an Excise and Taxation Officer, whose intervention was neither established by evidence nor sanctioned by the statute. The court ruled that failure to prove the continuous safe custody and direct transmission of samples from the police station to the Chemical Examiner creates a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unexplained intervention of an unauthorized official in the transmission of narcotic samples vitiate the proof of safe custody?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the safe custody of recovered samples sent to the Chemical Examiner?
  • What is the effect of a time lag and discrepancies between the testimony of the police courier and the Chemical Examiner's report regarding sample transmission?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon Rashid and 4 others vs Muhammad Yousaf Afridi and 3 others2019 PCr. L J 1480 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-01
  appeal against acquittalconfessional statementhudood ordinancezinachild witnessmedical evidencecriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents by the trial court in a case involving murder and zina. The core legal questions concern the legality and voluntariness of confessional statements, the evidentiary value of delayed eye-witness testimony of a tender-aged child, and the proper yardstick for interfering with a judgment of acquittal. The Federal Shariat Court held that confessional statements obtained in violation of statutory procedures and mandatory rules regarding reflection time and custody are involuntary and possess no evidentiary value, that exculpatory confessions cannot incriminate co-accused, and that delayed, tutored testimony of a child witness without corroboration cannot sustain a conviction. Finding no perversity, misreading, or illegality in the trial court's appreciation of evidence, the court laid down that judgments of acquittal will not be interfered with unless the conclusions drawn are speculative, arbitrary, or the result of non-reading of evidence. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a confessional statement recorded without providing sufficient time of reflection and in violation of mandatory procedural rules is admissible in evidence?
  • Can an exculpatory confessional statement be used against a co-accused under circumstantial evidence rules?
  • What is the yardstick for an appellate court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does the delayed and uncorroborated statement of a child witness of tender age suffice to maintain a conviction in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon Rashid & another vs Fop through Secretary, Ministry of Interior &2019 PLD Islamabad 453, 2019 IHC 50 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-03Read full judgment →
• Haroon Bin Tariq vs The State & 2 othersPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 119, 2019 SCMR 2014, 2019 SCP 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-16
  ocular evidencecriminal appealterrorism chargeacquittalappreciation of evidencevicarious liabilitystray bullet
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a violent incident in Gujrat resulting in two deaths and injuries, leading to convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern the evidentiary value of ocular testimony regarding the participation of female accused in a premeditated assault and whether the accidental killing of a police officer, who was not the intended target, constitutes an act of terrorism. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's narrative regarding the female accused's involvement was improbable and lacked credibility, given the social context and the presence of male family members, resulting in the acquittal of Mst. Raaj Sanam. Regarding the terrorism charge, the Court held that the death of the police officer, who was not the intended target and was not performing an official duty at the scene, did not satisfy the criteria for terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The principle established is that criminal liability for terrorism requires a clear nexus between the act and the specific objectives defined in the statute, and cannot be extended to collateral, accidental deaths.

  Questions settled

  • Does the accidental death of a bystander, including a police officer not performing official duties, automatically attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can the participation of female family members in a violent assault be rejected on the grounds of improbability in a traditional social context?
  • Is a conviction for terrorism sustainable when the deceased was not the intended target of the assailants?
  Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State and another2020 KLR Criminal Cases 237, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1229, 2019 YLR 1346 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-20
  chance witnessbenefit of doubtQatl-i-Amdforensic evidencecriminal appealocular accountadverse inference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the offences of Qatl-i-Amd and abduction. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular evidence, the validity of the motive, and the evidentiary value of forensic reports where weapons and crime empties were dispatched simultaneously. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the eye-witnesses to be "chance witnesses" who failed to provide a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene, and their testimony was contradicted by both the medical evidence and the site plans. Furthermore, the court ruled that the recovery of the weapon was legally inconsequential as it was sent to the forensic agency on the same day as the crime empties. Applying the principle that the benefit of doubt is a right rather than a concession, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. It also affirmed that medical evidence is merely confirmatory and cannot substitute for substantive evidence of identification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the simultaneous dispatch of a weapon and crime empties to a forensic laboratory render the recovery inconsequential?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to identify an accused in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when a material witness is withheld by the prosecution?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a legal right for an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Hanzla Khalid, etc vs Khalid Parvaiz, etc2019 PLJ Lahore 402 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Hanzla Khalid and others vs Khalid Parvaiz and others2019 PLJ Lahore 402, 2019 MLD 1128 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Hania Najeeb vs P.M.D.C., etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 688 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Hania Najeeb vs P.M.D.C, etc.2019 PLJ Lahore 458, 2019 MLD 1900 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07Read full judgment →
• Haneen Gul vs Government of Gilgit Baltistan through Chief Secretary2019 YLR 975 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-12-14Read full judgment →
• Haneefullah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PLC (C.S.) 515, 2019 PHC 306 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-04
  writ petitionservice matterseducational qualificationcut-off dateeligibilitypublic appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed before the Peshawar High Court challenges the refusal of the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Primary School Teacher (PST) despite securing high merit, on the ground that he did not possess the mandatory Bachelor Degree by the cut-off date specified in the advertisement. The core legal question concerns whether a candidate who acquires the requisite educational qualification after the application cut-off date, but prior to the interview or final appointment, can be considered eligible for public employment. The Court held that if a candidate has not passed or acquired the essential qualification by the cut-off date for receiving applications, they are ineligible for the post, distinguishing cases where the qualification was already attained but formal certification was delayed. The Court laid down the principle that eligibility is strictly tied to possessing the essential qualification by the stipulated cut-off date unless the candidate had already passed the examination by that date and only formal issuance of the degree was delayed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate who acquires the essential educational qualification after the cut-off date for receiving applications is eligible for appointment?
  • Does a candidate become eligible for a post if they pass the required examination after the application deadline but before the date of the interview?
  • Can an appointing authority consider a candidate who failed to meet the threshold of eligibility on the cut-off date set out in the advertisement?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Shahbaz Sharif vs National Accountability etc2019 LHC 917 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-06Read full judgment →
• Hamza Rasheed Baig vs Minister Industries and Minerals Department2019 P.S.C 822, 2019 MLD 640 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-10Read full judgment →
• Hamza Rasheed Baig vs Minister Industries and Minerals Department2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 68 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif vs United States2019 SCMR 1332 · Supreme Court of United StatesRead full judgment →
• Hamid Majeed, etc vs Maroof Ashraf Mian, etc2019 LHC 1410 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-03Read full judgment →
• Hamid Majeed and 2 others vs Maroof Ashraf Mian and 6 others2019 CLC 490 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-03Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ullah Qureshi vs The State2020 PCr. L J 284, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 664, 2019 PHC 188 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-20
  superdaritemporary custody of vehiclecontrol of narcotic substancesinnocent ownerejusdem generisconfiscation of conveyanceinterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge dismissing the appellant's application for the superdari (temporary custody) of a truck involved in a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether an innocent owner of a vehicle, who is not an accused or connected to the crime, can be deprived of the temporary custody of their transport until the conclusion of the trial under Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Peshawar High Court held that the phrase "any private individual" in the proviso to Section 74 must be interpreted ejusdem generis with the preceding words (accused, associate, or relative) and does not include an innocent owner lacking any nexus with the offense. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned order and directed that the vehicle be released on superdari to the appellant, establishing the principle that an innocent owner unaware of the illicit use of their property is entitled to its interim custody pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an innocent owner of a vehicle who is not an accused can be deprived of its temporary custody pending trial under Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the phrase "any private individual" in the proviso to Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 include an innocent vehicle owner having no nexus with the crime?
  • Is an owner of a conveyance entitled to its return or interim custody if they had no conscious knowledge of its use in narcotics trafficking?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed Muhammad Hussain vs Zia Hashmi and 3 others2019 P.S.C. 610 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-28Read full judgment →
• Haleem Ur Rehman vs Province of Sindh and others2019 SCMR 1653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-08-05
  medical college admissionpermanent residence certificatewrit jurisdictionalternate remedyeducational testimonialsmerit-based admission
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that refused to cancel the admissions of medical students (respondents) and declined to direct their replacement by the petitioner. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternate remedy, and whether the cancellation of Permanent Residence Certificates (PRCs) by an appellate authority after students had nearly completed their MBBS degrees warranted the cancellation of their admissions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly exercised its writ jurisdiction, as the remedy under the Sindh Permanent Residence Rules, 1971 was not efficacious given the advanced stage of the students' education and the potential for irreparable harm. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, noting that the educational testimonials and PRCs were not proven fake at the time of admission. The key principle laid down is that where an administrative action, such as the cancellation of a PRC, threatens to disrupt the completion of a professional degree after the initial verification process was deemed valid, the High Court may appropriately intervene via writ jurisdiction to prevent injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction when an alternate statutory remedy is available but deemed not efficacious?
  • Does the cancellation of a Permanent Residence Certificate by an appellate authority after the completion of a professional degree necessitate the cancellation of a student's admission?
  • Is a student's admission liable to be cancelled if their educational testimonials and Permanent Residence Certificate were verified as genuine at the time of admission?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Hussain and others vs The State and others2019 YLR 1362 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-11
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecivil disputedocumentary evidencebail as rulecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Hakim Hussain and Qasim Hussain in connection with FIR No. 258 of 2018, involving allegations of theft and fraud regarding a tractor. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the offences and the existing civil dispute over the tractor's ownership. The Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the prosecution's case is based on documentary evidence already in police custody, eliminating the risk of tampering. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that a parallel civil suit regarding the tractor's title is pending. The key principle laid down is that for non-bailable offences punishable with imprisonment of less than ten years, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, applicable unless there is a risk of abscondence, tampering with evidence, repetition of the offence, or the accused is a previous convict.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a pending civil suit regarding the ownership of property affect the grant of bail in a criminal case involving the same property?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for non-bailable offences punishable by imprisonment of less than ten years?
  • Does the fact that all prosecution evidence is documentary and already in police custody mitigate the risk of evidence tampering for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 418 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-11
  revisional jurisdictionAssistant Sessions Judgesubordination of courtscriminal revisiondistribution of businessappellate hierarchy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sanghar, dismissing an application under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the return of a weapon. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses direct revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge, or if such jurisdiction lies with the Sessions Judge. The Court held that, based on Section 17(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Assistant Sessions Judges are subordinate to the Sessions Judge, who also controls the distribution of business. Relying on the principle that the venue of appeal determines the hierarchy of courts, the Court concluded that the Sessions Judge is the appropriate forum for revision against orders of the Assistant Sessions Judge. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction, directing the applicant to approach the Sessions Judge instead. The judgment affirms that the revisional jurisdiction against orders of an Assistant Sessions Judge lies with the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have direct revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge?
  • Are Assistant Sessions Judges subordinate to the Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Which court has the jurisdiction to hear a revision application against an order passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Muhammad Saeed vs Deputy Commissioner, Vehari and others2020 PLD Lahore 110, 2019 LHC 3344 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-25Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Khadim Hussain through legal heirs vs Hakeem Khadim Hussain2019 YLR 710 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-20Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Ali Momin vs Ghulam Nabi and 6 others2019 MLD 1491 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-06
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtidentification paradecontradictions in evidenceabductionpolice encounterdouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves criminal acquittal appeals filed against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Hyderabad, which acquitted the respondents of charges related to abduction, police encounter, and illegal weapons. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence, the weight to be attached to material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the necessity of an identification parade where accused persons are not nominated in the FIR, and the principles governing interference by an appellate court in judgments of acquittal. The court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to fatal contradictions, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and recording statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C., and the failure to hold an identification parade or send recovered weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the impugned judgment suffers from gross misreading or non-reading of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice, as accused persons who have been acquitted enjoy a double presumption of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal judgment in the absence of gross misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice?
  • Does the failure to hold an identification parade for unnamed accused subsequently arrested create a fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of material and unexplained contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses and abductees in a criminal trial?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report undermines the credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Raja Mubarak Hussain vs Masood Alam2019 MLD 61, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 215, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Noor Muhammad vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 669 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-07
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceadverse inferencedishonest improvementmurder referencecapital punishmentwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was sentenced to death for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged contradictions in ocular testimony, the withholding of material witnesses, and the absence of a source of light during a night-time occurrence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The Court found the ocular evidence unreliable due to dishonest improvements made by witnesses and the failure to produce independent witnesses, warranting an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits without relying on defence weaknesses, and where evidence is contradictory or withheld, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the deliberate improvement of testimony by prosecution witnesses render their evidence unreliable?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to produce available independent witnesses?
  • Is the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the prosecution have to prove its case on its own merits without relying on the weaknesses of the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 499 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-07
  post-arrest bailmedical groundsfurther inquiryQatal-e-Amdstatutory delayvicarious liabilitytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal petition filed by Haji Muhammad seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 78/2015 registered under Section 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kangan Pur, District Kasur, for the alleged Qatal-e-Amd of Amjad Ali. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on statutory further inquiry grounds under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly considering his advanced age, severe medical condition involving left hemiplegia and cerebral atrophy, inconsequential weapon recovery, and protracted incarceration without trial conclusion. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner's medical condition and the circumstances surrounding the case attracted the provisions of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. for further probe. The key principle laid down is that extraordinary care and caution must be exercised by courts while deciding bail in capital cases, balancing tentative assessment of the material with humanitarian medical grounds and the principle that an accused cannot be detained indefinitely when further inquiry is warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused suffering from severe chronic illness and paralysis is entitled to post-arrest bail on medical grounds?
  • Does the lack of matching empties render the recovery of a weapon inconsequential at the bail stage?
  • When does the case of an accused fall within the scope of further inquiry attracting subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be kept behind bars for an indefinite period pending trial when investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Shafiq vs Registrar of Companies, Corporatization2021 P C T L R 678, 2019 CLD 816 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-03-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Nawaz and others vs Aminullah (decd) thr. L.Rs and others2019 PLJ SC 465, 2019 P.S.C 1300, 2019 SCMR 974, 2019 SCP 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-19
  declaration suitspecific performancesale agreementproof of documentpresumption of ownershippossessiontime-barred suitmaintainability of appealQanun-e-ShahadatTransfer of Property Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court dismissed petitions challenging a High Court judgment that upheld lower court decisions, rejecting a suit for declaration of ownership based on a sale agreement. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of a suit for mere declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, without seeking specific performance; the proof of the sale agreement; the applicability of presumptions for old documents; and the burden of proof regarding possession. The Court held that a suit for a mere declaration is not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, if the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief (such as specific performance), omits to do so. It further found that the sale agreement was not proved, the presumption under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, for 30-year-old documents was inapplicable as the document was only 19 years old when the suit was filed, and Article 126 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, did not assist the petitioners as the defendant's title was acknowledged. Additionally, one appeal was deemed not maintainable due to arraying a deceased respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for a mere declaration maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, if the plaintiff could have sought further relief but omitted to do so?
  • Does the presumption for documents thirty years old, stipulated under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, apply if the document is less than thirty years old when the suit is filed?
  • When is the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not accrued?
  • Does Article 126 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (or Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872) apply if the defendant's title is acknowledged and proved?
  • Is an appeal maintainable if the petitioners array a deceased person as the sole respondent, knowing of their death and that their legal heirs had been brought on record by the Trial Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ismail Proprietor of Muhammad Ismail Construction2019 CLD 80 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2018-04-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Hassan Sherani vs Sardar Babar Khan and 13 others2019 CLC 670 · Election Tribunal · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Mohammad Ilyas vs Haji Mushtaq Ahmed through L.Rs.2020 [M] C L R 722, 2019 CLC 2041 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Malik Adnan Khan vs Akram Khan Durrani and 9 others2019 CLC 570 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Fida Ali vs Chowdary Muhammad Younas and another2019 MLD 1160 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-10-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Arz Mohammad vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad and 8 others2019 YLR 2098 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Allah Ditta vs Additional District Judge, Mian Channu, District2019 PLJ Lahore 39 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Qayyum vs Chief Executive Officer/CEO MEPCO and 2 others2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 52 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2019-01-23
  compulsory retirementgrievance petitionlimitation periodtime-barredlabour lawservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Punjab Labour Court, which dismissed the appellant's grievance petition regarding his compulsory retirement from WAPDA services. The appellant, a former Line Foreman-I, was compulsorily retired in 1999 following allegations of misconduct, including failure to report damaged infrastructure and accepting illegal gratification. The appellant challenged this order through a departmental appeal, which was dismissed in 1999, and subsequently filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal in 2009, which abated in 2011. The appellant then filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court in 2011. The core legal question was whether the grievance petition was barred by limitation, given the significant delay between the retirement order and the filing of the petition. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the grievance petition was hopelessly time-barred, noting that the appellant had already accepted pensionary benefits and failed to pursue legal remedies within the statutory timeframe. The Tribunal affirmed that the law of limitation must be strictly followed and cannot be dismissed as a mere technicality, thereby maintaining the trial court's dismissal of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance petition filed eleven years after the impugned order of compulsory retirement is maintainable?
  • Can the law of limitation be disregarded as a mere technicality in service matters?
  • Does the acceptance of pensionary benefits by an employee affect their ability to challenge a retirement order?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Majeed & Co. through Managing Partner vs Addl. District2019 CLC 1693, 2019 PLJ Lahore 68 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-12
  writ jurisdictionhandwriting expertspecific performanceopinion evidencerevisional jurisdictionprocedural irregularityQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the orders of the trial court and the revisional court, which had declined the petitioner's application to send the respondent's signatures to a handwriting expert for comparison during a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in refusing to appoint an expert when direct evidence was available and whether the high court should interfere in such procedural orders under its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the lower courts exercised their jurisdiction properly. The ratio of the decision is that a handwriting expert's opinion is merely confirmatory or explanatory and does not constitute conclusive proof; it cannot supersede direct, confidence-inspiring evidence. Furthermore, the court emphasized that expert reports are not binding on the court, and under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the court itself possesses the power to compare signatures. The court also affirmed that procedural orders passed by a revisional court in civil litigation are generally not amenable to challenge via writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the report of a handwriting expert binding upon a court of law?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against an order passed by a revisional court in civil litigation?
  • Does the availability of direct evidence render the opinion of a handwriting expert unnecessary?
  • Under what legal provision is a court empowered to compare signatures or thumb impressions itself?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Karim Memon and another vs The State and another2019 YLR 2376 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-24
  Illegal Dispossession Actforcible dispossessionmunicipal landKatchi Abadicriminal appealcriminal revisioncivil dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant alleged that he was forcibly dispossessed from his plot by the accused, claiming ownership via a registered lease deed from Katchi Abadi Authorities. Conversely, the accused claimed title through civil court decrees and an agreement of sale. The core legal question concerned whether the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act were properly invoked where rival claims to municipal land existed and title documents lacked foundational legality, such as a formal notification under the Katchi Abadi Act, 1987. The Sindh High Court held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature concerning municipal property, and neither party established lawful title, rendering the penal provisions inapplicable. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appeal allowed, the revision dismissed, and directions issued to the municipal corporation to reclaim and protect the public land from encroachments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be sustained when the underlying property dispute involves rival claims to municipal or public land?
  • Does a lease deed issued by Katchi Abadi Authorities carry legal weight without a notification issued under section 19 of the Katchi Abadi Act, 1987?
  • Whether disputes of a civil nature concerning property titles should be adjudicated through criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →